My approach this initiative has always been one of good Civil Society strategy. I have expressed concern about where the NETmundial Initiative might go, and expressed reservations about the selection processes for representatives of Civil Society, as well as the risks of those representatives being "held hostage" within the Initiative should it veer in unfortunate directions. But, I have also supported a strategy of active engagement in the Initiative itself as Civil Society stakeholders in a multistakeholder process.

It is clear that there is significant division of opinion over participation in the development phase of the NMI. There are clearly merits in the arguments of those for, and those opposed to, participation in the development phase. In light of those arguments I no longer oppose participation in the development phase. I do have a suggestion.

Whatever position NCSG takes, one way or another NMI will have a contingent of representatives of Civil Society in its development phase.  Should the NMI veer in directions that challenge the core values of Civil Society stakeholders, I hope that there would be a separate side dialogue (caucus) between the Civil Society community and those representatives of Civil Society that are within the organizational structures of the NMI, to agree on how to respond. There may even be ways to make the NMI representatives of Civil Society more accountable to the wider community on an ongoing basis.

Another simmering issue is whether the NMI has finite goals and a sunset date, or is expected to remain around forever.

Sam Lanfranco, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee